OPINION:
When NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg spoke about Ukraine’s future as a member of the alliance, he probably didn’t say anything that Russian intelligence didn’t already know. Mr. Stoltenberg said that all NATO members had agreed that Ukraine would become a member once it had won the war Russia is now waging against it.
There have been many other statements about — and recommendations for — the future of NATO. Since 2006, former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has recommended that NATO be open to membership by Australia, Japan and Israel because those nations share NATO’s values. In an April 12 Wall Street Journal op-ed, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton wrote that we should pursue Mr. Aznar’s idea of welcoming those three nations into NATO and make the alliance a truly global one.
There are two big problems with Mr. Stoltenberg’s statement and the plans Messrs. Aznar and Bolton recommend. First is the provocative effect that such expansion of NATO would have on Russia and China. Second is the fact that the NATO member nations, having spent little on their own defense for decades, are too weak to meet their obligations to the current alliance, much less to a larger one.
Mr. Stoltenberg’s statement was made amid assurances that NATO would stand by Ukraine regardless of Russia’s intent. But having said what he did, Mr. Stoltenberg made it official that Russia’s war against Ukraine is an existential one for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Mr. Putin, feeling much like Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany in the years leading up to World War I, has felt surrounded by NATO’s previous expansions into what was previously Soviet territory. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary and Poland joined. Seven nations joined in 2004, including Estonia. The 2023 accession of Finland — which shares an 832-mile border with Russia — has only exacerbated Mr. Putin’s paranoia. The accession of Ukraine, which Mr. Putin believes is properly part of Russia, is something Mr. Putin and his government could not survive.
Similarly, the accession of Australia and Japan would promise that were China to attack its Pacific neighbors, all of NATO would respond militarily. Israel’s accession to NATO would either enrage its Arab neighbors or, fearing Iran, make them want to join.
The further expansion of NATO raises the question of what value the alliance could be to prospective members. The answer, sadly, is that most NATO members are not capable of defending themselves, let alone other nations.
Many NATO members — particularly France and Germany — are incapable of meeting their mutual defense obligations under the NATO Treaty. We have only to recall the statement of Lt. Gen. Alfons Mais, commander of the German army, on Feb. 24, 2022, the day Russia invaded Ukraine.
Gen. Mais said: “In my 41st year of peacetime service, I would not have thought that I would have to experience a war. And the Bundeswehr, the army which I have the honor to command, is standing there more or less empty-handed. The options we can offer the government in support of the [NATO] alliance are extremely limited.”
Three days after Gen. Mais’ statement, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, successor to Angela Merkel, said that Germany would greatly increase its military spending to the 2% of its gross domestic product that NATO agreed in 2006. But Mr. Scholz has done nothing to increase German military expenditures.
Germany and France are the principal deadbeats of NATO. Former President Donald Trump was right to insist on greater military expenditures by NATO members, but his words were quickly forgotten. A nation’s worthiness of alliance must be judged largely by what it could bring to a fight. Even Britain’s forces, in the words of Defense Minister Ben Wallace, are “hollowed out” and underfunded.
Why would Japan, Australia or Israel — or any other nation — want to join an alliance that couldn’t come to their defense? Judging by China’s recent maneuvering, why would any nation want to join?
China has made inroads to NATO’s unity in its pursuit of NATO’s unraveling. During his recent trip to China, French President Emmanuel Macron said that Europe shouldn’t take sides over Taiwan. On April 15, China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, said he “hopes and believes” Germany will support China’s “peaceful reunification” with Taiwan. That belief must have some foundation.
Instead of making an already weak NATO a global alliance, we should be pursuing regional alliances with nations that are prepared to defend themselves. The AUKUS agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. should be made into a Pacific equivalent of NATO. Japan and Australia have the intentions and capabilities to defend themselves that almost every NATO member lacks. Perhaps India, which is also threatened by China, would want to join.
Regional alliances such as that would be in a far better position to defend their own territory — with U.S. assistance — than NATO can. There are probably no nations in Asia that would be willing to defend NATO’s European members, but they would be willing to fight for their own territories and their neighbors. Japan and Australia have already said that if we defended Taiwan, they would join the fight.
NATO’s best days are behind it, but regional alliances beginning with our Pacific allies are the best way to meet the anticipated threats.
• Jed Babbin is a national security and foreign affairs columnist for The Washington Times and contributing editor for The American Spectator.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.